The Analysis

What this measures. Two sourced facts placed side by side: the committees a member sits on, from the congressional roster, and the industries whose PACs funded them, from FEC filings. Where a member's share from an industry runs above the chamber average, the page says so and shows both numbers.

What it does not claim. That a contribution bought a vote, a hearing or an amendment. No filing shows that, and asserting it would be an allegation rather than a finding. Members sit on the committees that match their districts — a farm-state representative on Agriculture takes farm money and would with or without a committee seat. Correlation is what is shown here, and correlation is all it is.

Where to find intent, honestly. Lobbying registrants file quarterly reports naming the specific bills they lobbied on. That is a donor stating what it wants, in its own filing. We link those rather than guessing at motive.

Classification is ours, not the FEC's. Sectors are assigned by matching a committee's registered name and sponsoring organisation against keyword patterns, with unions classified as labour whatever industry they organise. 16% of contributions land in no sector and are shown as unclassified rather than forced into one. The committee-to-industry mapping is editorial and written out in the source so you can disagree with it.

Small totals are excluded from comparisons. A member who took $12,000 in PAC money can show 60% from one industry on the strength of three cheques. Comparisons against the chamber average are only drawn above $50,000 in total PAC contributions.

Independent spending is not counted here. Money spent for or against a member by groups they do not control is a separate thing, shown separately on their own page.